This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. stateofMissouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from Mel Carnahan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
User:132.241.245.49 has added Category:Targets of alleged Bush administration reprisals to this article. Mel Carnahan died in October 2000 and the Bush administration did not begin until January 2001. Therefore, I don't understand how this category could possibly be applicable. I'm also not certain what alleged incidents, the tag refers to. Do other editors have thoughts on this matter? TMS6311207:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is simply "Bush bashing" and political sour grapes.
In the Political career there is no mention of the covert Proposition B campaign and his pledge to remain neutral. Or that Judith Moriarty (Secretary of State) was impeached and his appointment of Rebecca Cook in 1994.
It was the first time that a dead man had ever been elected to Senate. Mrs. Carnahan appointment to the Senate was allowed without protest?
Legal action taken by Jean Carnahan (plane crash) to later finance the political ambitions? Which friendly judge heard that case?
Instrument rated pilot flying out of a rain storm can't read the properly functioning instruments?
The legal procedure was followed in 2000. No protests would have been valid. As the entry states, it was too late to remove Carnahan from the ballot, and the procedure in place was for the Lt Gov to appoint if necessary. Some have commented that the Lt. Governor wasn't required to appoint Jean Carnahan, and the promise before the election that he would do that was just that -- a promise. One he did not break, though. Any conspiracy theories regarding Jean Carnahan would belong on her talk page. Gavroche4203:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This article needs to conform to Wikipedia requirements re: references/sources - one external link about the plane crash is not enough. Then perhaps someone might assess the article, but not until then. I've put a tag in the article, which can be removed when references are supplied. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to the Missouri State Treasurer's Biography on Mel Carnahan which appears to verify at least some of the information in this article. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on my addition of a reference for this article, I have tagged the article for lack of in-line citations because I am not well-versed in the formatting of in-line citations on Wikipedia. If another user more familiar with that process could add in-line citations using the reference I provided, I would appreciate it. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With only a single reference to cover all the information in the article, it's impossible to inline it. It's formatted correctly until such time as alternative or extra references are found.
Also, did you realise that the death date in the article (unsourced) was October 16, 2000? The death date according to the reference is October 17, 2000, and I have amended the article accordingly. If anyone believes that it was the 16th they can change it back, but only if they insert a really reliable reference to support it. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mel Carnahan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Mel Carnahan was never a United States Senator-elect, much less a Senator. Upon certification that a dead person had received a plurality, the seat was declared vacant. Trying to shoehorn that into an elected office infobox is cute, but not factual. As a result, it has no place here. Carnahan is not the only person to have died or refused office after election to the Senate, and none of them have it noted in the infobox. Treatment in the article is good enough. -Rrius (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that there is an inconsistency in this article regarding Carnahan's deathplace. The InfoBox lists the Jefferson County town of Goldman, but the article text states that the plane crash in which Carnahan died in occurred near the Jefferson County cities of Pevely and Hillsboro. I had considered changing both the InfoBox and article text to reflect that he died in Jefferson County without any specific mention of nearby cities or towns, but decided to get a second opinion from my fellow Wikipedians before doing so. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the towns of Pevely and Hillsboro has been removed from the article by an unregisted user, and his deathplace is listed as Jefferson County without any specific mention of a city or town in his Missouri State Treasurer biography, so I will update the article accordingly. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Mel Carnahan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@FountofInterestingInfo: Pretty close to B class, imo, but the lead and some sections could use a bit of expansion, if possible. A large amount of the sources are linked to their archive, instead of the original URL, so that should also be fixed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!19:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good! ORES gives an assessment of 69% GA, and the article looks pretty clean, so with a few minor adjustments, the article should be good enough to be nominated as a GA, if you choose to do so.
A few minor suggestions:
- A large amount of the newspaper sources use the cite book template instead of cite news. This is relatively easy to fix, iirc, you just replace the book in {{cite book... with {{cite news...
- The final sentence in "Early life and education" needs a source
I think I've addressed all these concerns. Thank you for your continued feedback. It's truly helped to enhance this article beyond what I thought possible. If there's anything else you could suggest or think that I need to fix, let me know. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few sources need some minor rearrangements. If they have a full date in "Year of publication", it should be moved to "Source date". If their author name is given as "Associated Press" or other non-name, it should be moved to "agency". The name of the newspaper should be in "Name of publication" instead of "Publisher".
I've done this change to Early life and education, and State legislator, so you can look there for an example.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I'll write up a review for this article within the next few days, and then we can see what it still needs to meet the good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FountofInterestingInfo, I've done the sourcing portion of the review, and there's a problem that needs to be addressed. The use of newspaper sources means that they only describe the individual events, but they don't provide context, and they can't be used to establish a pattern because they don't describe one explicitly. I go into more detail about this below. You'll need to go through the article to make sure it only says what the sources say without adding any additional facts, making any inferences, or analyzing them yourself in any way. I suggest we close the review for now so that you can do this at your leisure, and then you can renominate once you're sure that every part of the article corresponds to a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I did make a few of the changes to the highlighted sections below. I'm sure that won't be it and I'm not going to resubmit it yet. I will try to check the sources in the next few days and hopefully we can get this done soon. Thanks for agreeing to edit this. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien Hi. I've combed through the article again and caught a few mistakes. I have fixed them, and checked to make sure each source said what was being attributed to it. I also added new sources from journals and books. So that should round the article out a bit. I also fixed the specific instances you mentioned down below and reduced any possible original research. I think I fixed many of the issues you mentioned. If you could give the article a second look so we can take the next steps, or potentially find what else needs fixing, I'd appreciate that.
Also, another person and I had a discussion down below over whether the info box should mention he was elected posthumously. If you have any insight on that issue, I'd appreciate you sharing it. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over it again soon and see if the sourcing issues have been fixed. If they have, then I'll review the rest of the article. Regarding the info box, such a label might be non-standard, but I won't make an issue out of it for GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FountofInterestingInfo, I've looked over the article again, and I found a couple more instances of unsourced statements. But while going over it, I also noticed a bunch of minor prose issues. Articles should usually be given a full copy edit before nomination. I'm going to end the review as unsuccessful. The article certainly isn't bad by any means, it just needs another once over before it's ready for a good article nomination. You can renominate it at any time; if you're interested in nominating it again, it needs to be gone over to make sure every thought expressed by the article is explicitly supported by the citation that comes after it. It also needs a copyedit to make sure that the writing and presentation are in line with the good article standard of "clear, concise, and understandable", preferably without any typographic or formatting issues. If you're not sure what to look for, you can ask the Guild of Copy Editors to take a look at it. You can also post it at peer review to get a second opinion on more specific issues like sourcing, but be aware that it can take a while before those get a response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that most of the sources are decades old. It's preferable to use more recent sources that go through the events to decide what's significant. It can still meet the good article criteria with these sources, but we're limited to simply describing the events. We would need other sources to explain the significance of these events or what effects they had. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, I did a Google Scholar search for sources about Carnahan, and two interesting ones came up: this article about the legality of his senate election and this article that summarizes his career. I haven't read them, but they're the sort of source that's helpful for writing a well-rounded article. These are both behind a paywall at HeinOnline, but once you become more active, you'll qualify for WP:The Wikipedia Library, which will give you access.
Spot checks to ensure the sources support what they're supposed to and to make sure that it's original writing:
[2] Belluck (2000):
This source doesn't mention "Ellsinore, Missouri", so I'm assuming one of the others do.
This source is in front of the following: However, owing to poor weather conditions, the twin-engine Cessna airplane he was flying on, which was piloted by Randy, lost control in rainy and foggy conditions and crashed on a forested hillside near Goldman, Missouri, only about 35 miles (56 km) south of St. Louis. All three on board the plane were killed in the crash. – But there are a lot of details here that the source does not support. For example, how do we know they were in a Cessna?
[6] Charton (2000):
This uses the exact same phrase as the source: he failed the physical for becoming an Air Force pilot. It should be reworded so it doesn't look like plagiarism.
"Improving teacher performances" isn't quite the same thing as "vocational programs and better teacher training".
[29] Bulletin Journal (1980) Y
[55] The Southeast Missourian (1990) – This is a good example of why newspaper sources aren't always helpful. The newspaper doesn't actually say that it was a frequent cause of conflict or that this is a recurring thing. It just describes one instance. It also doesn't say that this is when it came to a head, because again, it's just describing an isolated event. Based on this source, we don't know about anything related that might have happened before or after the 1990 dispute.
[59] Dao (2000) Y
[125] STLPR (2002) – I don't see anything here to support 2% margin.
A few more spot checks:
[4] Charton (2000) – Checked all five uses. There are multiple claims under "Early life and education" that this does not support.
[24] "Carnahan returns to politics after fourteen-year absence". Bulletin Journal (1980) – Checked both uses. Y
[67] Stapleton (1993) – This doesn't say when Carnahan was sworn in.
[132] Adams (2002) – Checked both uses. Y
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it appropriate (or rather, accurate) to describe Carnahan as a "Senator-elect" in his infobox. Technically he was already dead when he was elected, so I don't know if that label could apply to him. Or at least "died before taking office" should be something like "posthumously elected". estar8806 (talk) ★22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806 That's probably fair. That wording would imply he won and died after that. This article is in the process of a Good Article nomination (see above), so when I make the requested edits in the coming days, I'll change it to posthumously elected, and ask the person reviewing for their take on any further infobox action. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp Hello. I hope I don’t come off as rushing you, but it’s been over a week and there hasn’t been a review yet. Please take as much time as you need, but I just want to check in and see if you will be able to review the article soon. Thank you and all the best. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp Hello again. I want you to know that I have taken your early suggestions and implemented them. I was frankly embarrassed at how I didn't catch some of those mistakes. With that in mind, if it's alright with you, I think I'd like a day to do one more thorough read through and make sure every thing is corrected, and to check other things. I still want to go through with the nomination, but I just want a day to catch any errors and make your life a little easier. Thanks again for the work you've done so far. It's been a great bit of help. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please take as much time as needed. But whenever you have a moment, could you please let me know when you expect to finish the review? I really appreciate your help with this thus far. Thank you. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp Hi. I just want you to know that I’ve been busy this past week, so I haven’t been as communicative as I would have liked, and for that I apologize. But I have made all the edits under the well-written section. Thanks for all the work you’ve done so far. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...winning an election for the job of lieutenant governor... I recommend shortening to winning an election for lieutenant governor...
...until he was defeated in a bid for the office of governor in 1984. I think this should mention he was defeated in a primary election, not the general election.
Governor of Missouri doesn't have to be linked a second time within the lead.
Carnahan eventually was elected as a state representative... I think this should be expanded to say Carnahan eventually was elected as a state representative for Phelps County, Missouri...
...concerning education, and taxes... Remove that comma.
Can some information from the "Early life and education" section be mentioned in the lead. A good rule of thumb is that something from each major section of the article should be mentioned in the lead.
Generally a maximum of four paragraphs is recommended for the lead as per MOS:LEAD. Since the first two paragraphs are short, they can just be combined.
Early life and education
...representing the eight congressional district... This should be changed to ...representing the eighth congressional district... and Missouri's 8th congressional district should be linked here.
A.S.J. Carnahan should be changed to A. S. J. Carnahan for consistency and as per MOS:INITIALS.
He moved back there in 1949... I would change this to He moved back to D.C. in 1949...
I don't think the initialism "USAF" needs to be said when its not used in the rest of the article. Same with the initialisms "J.D." and "B.A.". Unless the initialism is more well known than the original name (e.g. FBI), the initialisms don't need to be said.
Early political career
H.P. Patterson should be changed to H. P. Patterson as per MOS:INITIALS.
In 1965, Paterson died... Patterson is misspelled here.
The article is inconsistent in using eighth congressional district versus 8th congressional district.
...a move similar to what Governor Joseph Teasdale had done during his first campaign. Can this be expanded to ...a move similar to what Governor Joseph Teasdale had done during his first campaign in 1972. or whatever year it was.
Earlier that year, Blunt refused to authorize documents Republican Governor John Ashcroft signed while he was out of state, a move some political observers contended had been planned. This confuses me. Why did Blunt refuse to authorize those documents if Ashcroft and Blunt are both republican?
I'm still confused about this. How does Blunt refusing to authorize documents signed by a governor when out of state lead to Blunt also refusing to authorize documents signed by an acting governor. Is Blunt's reasoning that no documents can be authorized when signed with the governor out of state, whether the documents are signed by the governor or acting governor?
From what I've researched, it boiled down to a whole bunch of legal disputes. For Ashcroft, it was because he had been out of state and faxed the documents over, which brought up questions relating to the state constitution. For Carnahan, the case was in court at the time, and thus Blunt refused to sign it as to not interfere with any ongoing procedures. I've clarified this in the article, but if there needs to be any more clarification, let me know.
Governor of Missouri
Some of Schoemehl's supporters tried to persuade him to run against Senator Kit Bond in the 1992 U.S. Senate race. Is "him" referring to Carnahan or Schoemehl?
Can it be explained what the "Hancock Amendment" is?
In 1997, lawmakers agreed to remove the state's grocery tax and reduction on taxes for private pensions... This is ambiguous. I recommend rewording to In 1997, lawmakers agreed to remove the state's grocery tax and reduce the tax on private pensions... or something similar, otherwise it can be read as removing the reduction on taxes for private pensions.
The amendment was defeated by a nearly 40-point margin. Shouldn't that be a 36-point margin? The source says the % yes was 31.8, which means the % no was 68.2 and the difference was 68.2 - 31.8 = 36.4, which rounds to 36%. Also, that reference should have a page number added.
Spot checks done on sources 1, 2, 40, 42, 43, 80, 81, 91, 122, 123, 165, 184. I found no discrepancies.
Source 42 should have agency=Associated Press added. That won't hold me from promoting to GA though.
Image copyright is all ok. The only problem is with the alt texts. There is no alt text for the infobox image. With the rest of the images, the alt text could do with some improvement. Generally, its bad if the alt text is essentially repeating the caption. I would change the alt text in those instances to "refer to caption", as it is for the example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Captions and nearby text.
All my comments have been addressed, and the source review turned up nothing to fix, so I am going to pass this review now. Thank you for bearing with me for so long. Congratulations on the new GA! Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
(for original hook, which is most interesting) GA status, date, close paraphrase check ok. No qpq needed. Image free on Commons. --Soman (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written
Verifiable with no original research
Y
Well written
(for original hook, which is most interesting) GA status, date, close paraphrase check ok. No qpq needed. Image free on Commons. --Soman (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
